I originally had a reactionary response to this... Like why should the burden be on Architects. Most of us would love to make a building as efficent as possible, but at the end of the day it all comes down to who's paying. Sometimes no matter how much u try to educate a client they don't care and will barely be swayed with "it's not to code" as a reason. There's sooo many people above us with more power pulling levers and making decisions and we're lucky some times to push a client in the direction of more sustainable (and expensive) windows that are above code minimums.
Then I read the article, and after pulling my head out of my own ass where I was apparently throwing myself a putty party, I came out agreeing with the author. Although we do not usually hold much leverage, even with organizations like AIA and Ncarb, we do have a unique position of understanding the complexities of how things go from being design to built should use that knowledge to help inform and guide movements for the betterment of the environment. For example, even if IEEC insulation regulations go up, it is up the the individual municipality to accept them, same with all building codes, and I can tell u there is Wide variation depending on how liberal the municipality is and this can be just from county to county.
So while I want to blame everyone else that is responsible for allowing the wrong codes from being rattified or rich developer for skimping on windows and insulation(still legal cause energy codes) in a high rise, it's on architects to educate and try to push the system from the bottom.